UPDATE: Police Announce Arrest in Hate Attack

Police on Thursday afternoon have announced the arrest of 19-year-old Clayton Garzon, a Davis resident. Garzon was taken into custody on March 14, 2013, without incident.

Mr. Garzon has been arrested and booked in the Yolo County Jail, charged with assault causing great bodily injury; committing a hate crime; assault with a deadly weapon; stalking; committing a felony while on release from custody; and inflicting great bodily injury during the commisssion of a felony.

EARLIER STORY: Attacker Knocked on the Door to Brag About the Hate Attack on Davis Man

The Davis Police have identified a suspect in the brutal beating of Mikey Partida, a 31-year-old Davis resident and 2000 graduate of Davis High, who works as an employee at the Davis Food Co-op. The police have yet to make an arrest in the case.

A Facebook page that has been set up this week to share information about the incident asks “that anyone in possession of any details about the assault please refrain from publicly posting information at this time.”

They continue, “We will no longer be sharing any explicit details of the incident or the extent of the physical injuries Mikey sustained to protect fidelity of the criminal investigation.”

Earlier posts describe that Mr. Partida had attended a party at his cousin’s apartment and apparently left his keys there and returned to retrieve them, “when a man began kicking and beating him while yelling homophobic slurs.”

He suffered a fractured skull, bleeding on his brain, multiple fractured bones in his face and a laceration to his head that left a pool of blood on the lawn where he was beaten.

According to his family, the bruising and swelling around his eyes is so bad he still has not been able to open them, along with having a cut under one eye that went all the way though the lid. The trauma to his ear was so severe it caused his ear to swell three times its normal size and it had to be lanced to release the pressure.

The family claims that he was not in a fight or doing anything wrong, and they believe his only crime was being gay.

According to the official police report, at approximately 3:50 am, the Davis Police Department received a 9-1-1 call requesting an ambulance and the police to the 300 block of I St.

When officers arrived, they found a male subject who had sustained moderate to major injuries and was unconscious.

In addition, a second male subject was located with minor injuries. Although the investigation is continuing, officers were able to determine that there was a physical altercation that took place in the front yard of a residence where a house party had just finished.

The unconscious male was transported to the UC Davis Medical Center, where he remains hospitalized. The second male subject refused medical treatment.

“Based on statements from the residents, the Davis Police Department is investigating this incident as a possible hate crime,” the report said.

The victim’s mother posted on the Facebook site, “I wanted to express my gratitude for the huge support we have received. Every time I look at my son I think of every victim that has been assaulted for their race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender and how they are someone’s baby and my heart aches for all those moms.”

She wrote, “He seems to have turned a corner today and is talking and moving. He will have a long recovery – the doctors have mentioned perhaps a skilled nursing facility but we are hoping that he will be able to go home [as soon as] possible.”

“He is still very anxious and I think it is tragic that he worries about walking the streets he grew up on,” she continued. “However, the love he has received affirms the goodness in the world and without all of your gestures the sadness would be too much to bear.”

Mr. Partida told News 10 in Sacramento that there was absolutely no question that he was attacked because he was gay. Those with him said that the attacker called him a gay slur, the f-word, several times during the attack.

“I was just trying to make the right choice in a bad situation,” he told News 10 from his hospital bed at the UC Davis Medical Center.

He was walking with a group but forgot his keys and had to back. Before that point, the attacker was already yelling slurs at him according to Mr. Partida’s cousin, Vanessa Turner.

“He just continued, getting closer and closer, and then he just punched me,” Mr. Partida explained.

“The slur used begins with the letter ‘F’ and is a nasty term for homosexuals. Partida said the attacker was saying it over and over again while beating him,” News 10 report.

“Pretty loud and proud about it,” Mr. Partida said. “He just kept fighting me and fighting me until I blacked out. And then I came to and was here.”

Ms. Turner told News 10 that after the attack, the attacker knocked on the door to brag about what he had done.

Meanwhile, the family is asking for help.

“While the immediate challenges posed by the severity of his physical injuries are clear, the long-term impacts of PTSD are not. Consequently, we are in the process of seeking legal representation to secure every possible resource and support necessary to facilitate his recovery and healing,” his mother wrote.

“I have since learned that in addition to a pre-existing history of violence, his attacker will have no trouble securing very good legal help. While I know it is difficult for him to accept monetary assistance (he has worked since he was ten) we are asking for contributions to ensure that this tragic and senseless, animalistic act, is immediately redressed,” she wrote.

The family has set up a Facebook page where people inclined to help can donate to the cause.

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

SOD. I have lived here 35 years and that point about locals being a problem is far off base.

However, I do think we are creating more and more pissed off young men through our crappy education system that increasingly caters only to girls and those with academic gifts. That and politicians that pursue policies that keep jobs hard to find and yes, we will see more young men acting out and doing bad things.

[i]Actually, “Frankly”, I think that people who beat up other people are responsible for their own behavior. Blaming the education system and politicians seems to be displacing that responsibility. [/i]

Don – I agree. Was not making any excuses… only stating a consideration for why we might be seeing more of this.

> sod: i think your comment is either inappropriate > or misplaced. the description you are reading is > that of the victim not the perpetrator.

I did make a mistake since when I first read it I thought David was telling us the “perpetrator” was the 31 year old Davis High grad. It is not just Davis, but anywhere you have people in their 30’s, 40’s and even 50’s!! that never got an education or learned a trade and still live with Mom & Dad you will have problems. Unlike Frankly I don’t blame the schools I blame the parents (people that have to get up and go to work the next day so they can pay the rent almost never get in fights at 3:45am on work nights)…

Frankly: [i]Don – I agree. Was not making any excuses… only stating a consideration for why we might be seeing more of this.[/i]

I was aware of many instances of this growing up in another state at another time. It was called “gaybashing”. I knew of high school classmates who bragged about doing this, and it was typically not given much attention like it is now. It was also completely acceptable to insult other males’ masculinity by calling them “f-g” or other equivalent epithet. It was acceptable to think of and treat homosexuality as deviant behavior, and likely a personal choice, and to discriminate against anyone who displayed such tendancies. In Davis in 2013, all of this is more clearly defined as morally unacceptable behavior. We are far from living in a perfect world, but in my mind, it’s progress.

I’m curious as to why you think we are seeing more of this. What was life like when you were growing up?

Hope he got to the hospital in time to make sure no brain damage has occurred (brain can swell and get damaged in hours after head trauma like this).

This is one of the worst beatings in Davis I’ve heard about; good to hear it sounds like they know the identity of the perp.

Beating anybody this bad for any reason is pretty hateful. It’s not just about establishing dominance; a beating like this has intent to hurt, typically based on some kind of the many things that people can use to target hateful feelings.

The generalities being put forth here are inappropriate and strange, such as: Who went to high school where and did not leave town, who has a job or not and stays up ’til whenever, school catering only to girls and gifted, politics, living at home with parents, etc. I find these all misplaced, judgmental and without basis. And not that it matters much, but it is very vague as to whose door was knocked on to brag after the incident. The thing that Mikey says during the news 10 interview that really makes me optimistic of his mental state is that he will not be intimidated by this or avoid that neighborhood just because the perp lives there. Although hopefully by the time he’s out of the hospital the perp will be in custody.

What do we know about the role of alcohol in this incident? I ask because the Vanguard has focused on two other stories recently (hate crime alleged at Tres Hermanas and alleged rape at train station) in which the level of inebriation of the accused (both of whom were acquitted, I believe) was very high. I am neither a tee-totaller nor a prohibitionist but, thinking causally, it appears that certain societally sanctioned inhibitions take flight when excessive alcohol is involved. We still treat its sale and use as a personal choice and seem uninterested in having a community conversation about its abuse–even when said abuse leads to violence. It may not have been a factor in this terrible situation but I guess I would be surprised to learn it was not.

Frankly: [i]However, I do think we are creating more and more pissed off young men through our crappy education system that increasingly caters only to girls and those with academic gifts.[/i]

…and gays, and minorities, and immigrants, and students with cognitive/emotional issues (i.e., ADHD, dyslexia), and poor families, and physically disabled students, etc. More frequently in the past, many of those students left the educational system quicker in the past, or were absent, and became pissed off by their situation.

Follow Darwin’s dictum. Figure out how to adapt or become irrelevant.

You are guilty of the same thing I criticized Jeff Boone of in his recent article that he posted here. The world operates in more dimensions than you’re imagining. When you limit your vision, you miss things.

As an update I understand an arrest has been made today and Mikey is being moved to a rehab facility. He’s very sad about this but want’s everyone to know that he can’t believe all all of the support he has received. He was finally able to look at this page today and it has cheered him up immensely.[/quote]

David – that’s not very nice to include a link regarding the suspect’s father. There is nothing to indicate that Dr. Garzon has anything to do with his son’s violent tendencies. It doesn’t matter if his dad is a doctor or a ditch digger: including this information could appear to some to be class-ist.

I’m just trying to find as much information as possible. My understanding is that Mr. Garzon comes from a wealthy family, father is a prominent doctor, but he has been troubled for some time – drug problems, rehab, boarding school, and then the arrest last year for stabbings in Dixon, and now on release for that, this incident. The victim’s family expressed concern that Mr. Garzon would be hiring an expensive legal counsel, now we see why they had that concern.

So what if he hires “an expensive legal counsel” to defend him? Who cares? If he is the one who beat Mikey so badly, and if he did it because Mikey is gay, then he will surely “swing” whether he is represented by Johnny Cochran or Jerry Gallo…er, I mean Gerry Callow (oops, I mean Vincent Gambini).

I’m sorry, David, but the fact that you are discussing the fact that this douchbag comes from a “wealthy family” or that is father is a “prominent doctor” could be considered offensive, and again class-ist. Heck, if he wanted the best defense attorney available, his father would completely cut him off so he could go with public defender Dan Hutchinson – he’s got a great track record of body-slamming the DA’s office (while ethically representing his clients).

It looks like Clayton looks is a very troubled young man from a very good family, who have been doing everything they can for their son. I expect that they will continue to do so. But a second arrest for a serious violent crime will be hard to overcome. While my whole heart goes out to the victim, I also recognize that there is collateral damage to both families and their friends and, even further, the community.

When my sister went to UCD one of her sorority sisters (a Davis High Grad) told her to “watch out for anyone that grew up in Davis that never went to college and is still here since they are trouble”…

Unbelievable. What a mean, hateful thing to say. Simplistic and just plain wrong. So many very nice people live in Davis who did not follow your path to “success”, if success means judging others by whether or not they went immediately from high school to UCD. Some people take a while to decide what they want to do. Other people don’t need a lot of expensive material possesions, or a piece of paper from UCD, to decide they are “successful”. Your remark against people without college degrees is downright hateful.

[i]”It would also be interesting to find out if the guys knew each other …”[/i]

I figured, at first, that they must have known one another, because otherwise Garzón would not have known that Partida was gay, assuming that this attack was a hate crime. However, giving this a bit more thought, and considering that Garzón has a recent history of violent crime, it seems just as likely that Garzón did not know Partida at all, but someone told Garzón that Partida was gay or Garzón presumed that after having observed Partida at the cousin’s party.

To me what is so bewildering is why anyone would physically harm someone else for something so inoccuous as being gay? This goes way beyond mere anti-gay prejudice eminating from religious beliefs, macho culture or (in some cases) an effort of closeted gays trying to prove they are straight.

In the Dixon knife attack, the Patch story said Garzón had an accomplice. No accounts of his attack on Partida say that. So I don’t know if there is any reason to think his violence is a form of mob psychology, where, when Garzón is with likeminded friends (a gang if you will) he is prone to prove himself to the others by his vicious behavior, but with those friends not around, he would not initiate an attack?

[i]I’m curious as to why you think we are seeing more of this. What was life like when you were growing up?[/i]

wdf1 – We have plenty of evidence that idle, unemployed young men are a source of violence and related social problems. We have moved to an information economy while our public school education system has either become more crappy or failed to keep up. At the same time we have seen arts and industrial arts cut, and title-9 erode opportunities for young men to experience athletics. Lastly, we have a crappy economy after a Great Recession and a jobless recovery. All these things contribute to a higher percentage of idle and pissed off young men.

When I was growing up, I could get a job and work my way up to higher levels of prosperity. I was too busy working to be pissed off.

I was surprised to see that Garzon was only 19. It looks like his Dad should have stuck around to spend some time with his High School age son a couple years ago rather than flying to help the people in Africa (as the link Davis provided said).

P.P.S. to Jimmy’s Daughter the comments about people that stay in Davis was not meant as hateful against people without college degrees (my parents, grandparents and great grandparents never got college degrees) but as an observation that people who live with their parents for decades after graduating from high school without finding any kind of career (even digging ditches) tend to find trouble (or end up places where trouble finds them)…

One more thing. The military does accept people with criminal records. Even minor things. The reason is supply and demand… There are more people without any record wanting to get in to the military these days. So add that to the list of missing options for a large and growing pop of young men

[i]All these things contribute to a higher percentage of idle and pissed off young men. [/i]

Again: violent crime is down. So your analysis is pointless, because the facts don’t even prove the premise that you are working from. You are just trying to score political points from a case that has nothing to do with these supposed, but nonexistent, trends.

Again, per The Davis Enterprise, his arraignment is set for 4/12/2013 – one month from now. He has charges pending in Dixon too from last September that is winding through Solano County Court. He’s going to be out, in the community, for a while.

I happen to agree with Jimmysdaughter and said as much in an earlier post, other than not using the word hateful.Many parents experience problems with children who do not find their way and one hopes they straighten out before something like this happens. This person clearly can not handle walking the streets without being quite a threat and here we are. Very sad.

SouthofDavis – The Dad’s trip to Africa was a 3-week trip. I think you are assuming a lot of things that you know nothing about. How about this senario – he’s a student at DHS, gets caught with marijuana and arrested and expelled. To avoid the abyss of the Yolo County Juvenile Justice system, his parents ship him off to an expensive boarding school/rehab place. He returns to Davis, but not allowed to return to the High School He looses all connection to his friends and support that comes with being enrolled in school. All hopes of leaving Davis and attending college are dashed. He’s stuck here while his friends graduate and leave town for college, etc. He floats around town, hooking up with other people who are also hanging out. He uses drugs more and more often. He is angry and without direction. Doors are shut to him. He parties, gets into fights, gets more angry, unleashes all his anger and frustration on an innocent victim.

The consensus here is that Garzon is guilty, even though there’s been no official trial yet.

Indeed it does look very bad for many reasons. But I wonder why the victim approached someone he knew was extremely angry with him. Most people, I think, would have been far more cautious than Partido.

It’s an interesting question, whether Garzon’s family situation was a happy one, or not. Something is obviously terribly wrong somewhere here. Might it be that Garzon has been abused by his “wealthy family”, or molested by one of his “wealthy” relatives? Wealthy families are far better able to cover up abuse of their children than poorer families.

> i’m concerned that this guy has committed two > very violent crimes in the last four months and > yet was only given a $75,000 bail, how is that possible?

It seems like this guy will be doing a lot of jail time if he is convicted of stabbing a guy in Dixon and beating a guy in Davis.

I agree with Davis Progressive that the amount seems real low.

It seems like we should make his Dad pay more than $75K (and just skip buying a new Lexus this year) if the kid takes off for Mexico or Costa Rica.

P.S. To Ryan, I know nothing about this family (other than what I’ve read on the Vanguard site), but since 99% of the guys I’ve known about that have had problems had Dads that were too busy with other things (this includes the kids of rabbis and ministers that were too busy helping others to spend time with their own kids) to be there for the kids I hope that bringing up the topic will cause some people to look at what should be important in their life. Over the years I have read many studies of different prisons and in most cases close to half the guys locked up never knew their Dads (or saw them just a few times)…

FRANKLY: [i]”The military does accept people with criminal records.”[/i]

Did you mean to write “does not”? The rest of your comment seems to follow the idea that the military would not accept a criminal right now:

[i]”The reason is supply and demand… There are more people without any record wanting to get in to the military these days. So add that to the list of missing options for a large and growing pop of young men.”[/i]

I don’t honestly know that having a criminal record is exclusionary. I do know that the military is downsizing and many soldiers in good-standing who want to remain in the armed forces have not been permitted lately to re-enlist. That’s a big change from 10 years ago.

On the previous thread regarding this incident I was asked to weigh in by one of the posters. At that time I did not as I felt I had nothing to contribute. Now I do.

The very fact that Mikey is alert and conversant is a truly wonderful sign. Perhaps more than most people would know. In very severe head trauma with significant brain injury, the victim is typically kept in a drug induced coma for a prolonged period of time. That this has not been the case with Mikey is indeed a great reason for hope.

As to the comments being made about Garzon’s family, admittedly by those with no knowledge whatsoever ofthis family, has it occurred to you that perhaps you are becoming a source of pain for completely innocent individuals? For anyone who would site “99% of those they have known”, what is your “n” ? One ? Five?Something you read in a pop psychology article ? This kind of judgement, including the reference to a “Lexus”regarding someone of whom you have no knowledge is despicable. Garzon himself has not even been brought to trial and we have someone making up stories about his relationship with his father. Incredible.!

Rifkin: [i]I don’t honestly know that having a criminal record is exclusionary. I do know that the military is downsizing and many soldiers in good-standing who want to remain in the armed forces have not been permitted lately to re-enlist. That’s a big change from 10 years ago.[/i]

The army requires disclosure of convictions. A waiver ([url]http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyjoin/a/criminal5.htm[/url]) is required for serious criminal misconduct. It seems that the military has flexible discretion over the waiver process, and that whether it is relaxed or tightened depends on their current needs.

The reason the military does not take people with a criminal record is that it does not have to. There are too many people without that are applying. They also will not take a recruit without a high school diploma.

[i]The Washington Post is reporting today that the latest Federal Bureau of Investigation figures show that the U.S. violent crime has continued to fall:[/i]

Sure, as more young men are incarcerated then cannot commit crimes. That does not mean they are less angry and prone to violence.

Don, I am not trying to make political points however sensitive you might be to them. I truly care about these young men. I think there is a crisis of young men in this country. There are a few causes: societal change resulting in greater competition for jobs from women; a move away from a manufacturing economy to an information economy; politicians that intact policy that destroy free-enterprise and the jobs that it would otherwise create. However, the education system occupies the throne for damaging young men by failing to adequately engage them and prepare them for their next step toward a happy and prosperous life.

Do you disagree that we have a serious problem with too many idle, under-educated and unemployed young men? If not, then to what do you attribute the cause?

And, if you don’t think that this leads to greater anger and violence in this group, then what do you think it does lead to?

From the MySpace page of C. Garzón ([url]http://www.myspace.com/claytacular[/url]): [quote]im Clayton Daniel garzon. i live in northern california, and i have a great life. im not quit sure what im going to do with it yet, but what i do know is that my soul purpose while on this earth is to be happy. and you cant find happiness anywhere but inside yourself. so weather im rich and famous or a blue collar 9-5 guy when i get older ill still be the same me i am now. happy, out going, down to earth, and a little flashy 🙂 [/quote] Some of his MySpace pics:

FRANKLY: [i]”Sure, as more young men are incarcerated then cannot commit crimes. That does not mean they are less angry and prone to violence.”[/i]

You might be interested to know that violent crime has been falling all over our country for about 22 years fairly steadily. Non-violent crimes, by contrast, have gone up and down over the past two decades.

One recent theory, which I believe is compelling, is that the great drop in violent crime is related to the great decline in lead-poisoning, which followed the prohibition of lead as a gasoline additive. This theory suggests that the widespread introduction of leaded gas in the early 1940s* caused violent crime in the mid-1960s to increase substantially, and it kept rising until the early 1990s. The reason it took some 23 years after lead became widespread is because it took that long for a broad number of babies to have been born and raised while being exposed to lead all their lives. The same theory states that the reason violent crimes peaked in the early 1990s and fell thereafter is because it was in the early 1970s that laws came on the books banning lead as an additive to gas.

Keep in mind that this theory does not suggest that lead exposure causes people to be violent or that it explains violent crime as such. What it says is that when a child, usually a boy, is exposed to lead during his formative years (0-18), his brain will be affected in such a way that he will lack the ability to control violent impulses. Thus when you look at millions and millions of people, higher exposure to lead in childhood correlates very strongly with higher rates of violent crimes.

As it happens, this correlation theory has been tested across dozens of countries, rich, middle and poor, and it holds the same in all of them. That is, when lead was introduced as a gas additive, they got a big increase in violent crime 20 or so years later; and when it was taken away, 20 or so years later violent crimes fell, just as they did in the U.S.

Here is a link to a Mother Jones story about the lead exposure theory and violent crime ([url]http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline[/url]).

*Leaded gasoline was actually invented in the 1920s. However, it was not standard until just before WW2. And it was not until after WW2, when the US economy was much stronger, that lead exposure from leaded gasoline is believed to have become ubiquitous.

Here is a link to a Wired story from 2011 which is similar to the Mother Jones piece. The Wired story gets a bit more into the neuroscience of lead exposure. Here is an excerpt: [quote]In recent years, neuroscientists have made important progress in identifying the precise mechanisms by which [b]lead exposure reduces impulse control.[/b] Here, for instance, is a recent PLOS study from the Cincinnati Lead Study, in which the blood lead level of babies born in poor areas of Cincinnati were repeatedly measured between 1979 and 1984. Twenty years later, the researchers tracked down these subjects and put them in MRI machines, allowing them to measure the brain volume of participants. The researchers found that exposure to lead as a child was linked with a significant loss of brain volume in adulthood, particularly in men. Furthermore, there was a “dose-response” effect, in which the greatest brain volume loss was seen in participants with the greatest lead exposure. What’s especially tragic is that [b]the loss of volume was concentrated in the prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain closely associated with executive function and impulse control.[/b] Here are the scientists:

“Childhood lead exposure is associated with region-specific reductions in adult gray matter volume. Affected regions include the portions of the prefrontal cortex and ACC responsible for executive functions, mood regulation, and decision-making. These neuroanatomical findings were more pronounced for males, suggesting that lead-related atrophic changes have a disparate impact across sexes. This analysis suggests that adverse cognitive and behavioral outcomes may be related to lead’s effect on brain development producing persistent alterations in structure.”[/quote]

Almost all woman that have abortions have a guy that does not want to be a dad and we know that bad things happen when a Dad does not want a kid from day one, goes to prison or lets his kid drink and smoking pot at home…

“Almost all woman that have abortions have a guy that does not want to be a dad and we know that bad things happen when a Dad does not want a kid from day one, goes to prison or lets his kid drink and smoking pot at home..”

Your sources please. This does not conform to my 30 years experience in this field. However, I am always open to evaluation of actual evidence.

Ryan, I found the Enterprise article about the bail, really had to dig for it. I can barely believe that this did not violate the conditions of his other custody release and I am incensed that he is out on the street and for a mere $75000 (of which I believe only 10% gets you out). Makes me see how people can have feelings of vigilantism, I can not (or maybe I can) imagine how Mikey’s family must feel.

Today really takes the cake for some rather speculative assertions, ah but people love to speculate: lead, abortion, abuse, abandonment. The person I know first hand who was a real jerk when he grew up was coddled. I do not know if discipline in its place would have helped, but it became too late to try it.

> Almost all woman that have abortions have a guy > that does not want to be a dad…

Then Medwoman wrote:

> Your sources please. This does not conform to my > 30 years experience in this field. However, I am > always open to evaluation of actual evidence.

You have got to be kidding… or do you have some source (even one that you have seen in the past 30 years) that says most guys are upset that a woman has an abortion (I am talking about the guys that will be paying child support for years not the guys with the bibles outside the abortion clinics)?

Two seconds on Google found this:

The majority of women with unplanned pregnancies do not live with their partners or have committed relationships. These women realize that in all likelihood they will be raising their child as a single mother.

According to the suspect himself, he subscribes to the philosophy where “the [sole] purpose [of life] is to be happy”, where happiness is intrinsic.

This philosophy does not prevent a person who subscribes to such philosophy to feel any moral obligation to not cause harm. It acts against stability and peace.

It is possible for a community to naturally eradicate such philosophy from the culture without using any law. The first step is to understand and point out the threat of that philosophy, and distinctively denounce such philosophy.

Some actions that can be done to counter that philosophy:

1. Inform: Make it known that such philosophy contradicts peace, and provide alternative philosophies to subscribe

2. Address Concerns: Find out what concerns the person has and address those

If the issue can be resolved by the steps above alone, the person is operating in the ethical realm, because the person has an intention to do no harm. The following actions are used only when the person has no intrinsic intention to do no harm.

3. Withdrawing support: Withdrawing funding, or other help that the person has been taking for granted to sustain their life style and philosophy.

The philosophy that happiness (of the self) is the sole purpose of life is economically sustained by a few factors:

o A secured income that allows the person to have the life style they want without working or needing to cooperate with others.

o A lack of personal accountability for their actions, either shield by money, peers, or the law.

o Anonymity, the lack of information that allows the public to connect the wrongdoer to the individual.

By taking away these supports, it is possible to suppress the behavior of the person. It is also possible that the person by experiencing the lack of supports, the person subscribes to a different philosophy. The next tier of actions are used if withdrawing support fail to address the threat.

4. Restricting freedom of action: Banning the person from having the life style they have.

Restricting freedom, such as banning and imposing fines, and putting people in prison, is in the realm of the law. If the law has to be called upon to settle a problem, the conflict is at Tier 4. Since Tier 3, the conflict is already out of the realm of ethics. A conflict can only escalate to this Tier if there exists at least one entity that is unethical.

Because of this, it is necessary for each responsible person to think in terms of ethics instead of the law. This does not mean that the law should be broken, but that the bar of the law is set lower than the bar of ethical conduct.

[quote]Almost all woman that have abortions have a guy that does not want to be a dad and we know that bad things happen when a Dad does not want a kid from day one, goes to prison or lets his kid drink and smoking pot at home…[/quote]

Your Google references demonstrate a very good reason why it is not a good idea to use Google when addressing a medical issue. Your comment that I was responding to was the statement “Almost all woman that have abortions have a guy that does not want to be a dad. Your statement, in my opinion places far too much emphasis on the desire of the father to the exclusion of other factors.

In the general population, 3-4 per cent of pregnancies are associated with major chromosomal or developmental defects. With early US and genetic testing, the majority that are diagnosed prior to 20 weeks gestation are terminated.

Most unintended pregnancies do occur in the late teen to early twenties population of females, and this is doubtless the group that your interpretation would be most applicable to. However, the second most common population of women with unintended pregnancy are women in the 40-50 age range who have stopped using contraceptives because they erroneously believe that they are “too old” to get pregnant. There are many terminations in this age range because the couple believe that they are “too old” to handle the rigors whether physical, emotional or financial of raising another child.

Your statement also leaves out the situation ( quite common) in which it is the woman who does not want a child. The woman may or may not decide to inform the father in this situation. A number of “miscarriages” fall into this category. Also neglected is the situation of a couple who do want a child, but after painstaking consideration of their circumstances, decide this is not the right time for them.

Finally your statement left out an increasing number of women who recognize that they have a medical condition that would make it extremely dangerous for them to continue a pregnancy. This is an increasing number because with improvements in medical diagnosis and treatment, many women are living into their reproductive years who would previously have not have survived to this age, but for whom a pregnancy would still represent a lift threatening event.

I do not deny that the situation that you describe is common. I was taking exception to your claim that other circumstances are rare.

> Your comment that I was responding to was > the statement “Almost all woman that have > abortions have a guy that does not want to > be a dad.

It sounds like you agree with me you just don’t like the way I said it because I made it sound like the guys were making the decision. We both know that guys can exert pressure, but ultimately it is the woman’s decision. Maybe I can make the same point a different way, In almost all cases where a woman chooses to have an abortion the guy that got her pregnant is happy about her decision.

> In the general population, 3-4 per cent of > pregnancies are associated with major > chromosomal or developmental defects.

I know this and almost all guys don’t want to be a dad of a kid with “developmental defects”…

> the second most common population of women with > unintended pregnancy are women in the 40-50 age > range who have stopped using contraceptives because> they erroneously believe that they are “too old” to > get pregnant.

I think you will agree that almost all guys don’t want to be a dad at 55 when they are “too old” to run after a toddler…

> Your statement also leaves out the situation > (quite common) in which it is the woman who does > not want a child. The woman may or may not decide > to inform the father in this situation.

I know about this situation also and almost all guys that got a girl pregnant and didn’t know about it (say the woman in the “incident” by the railroad tracks a while back got pregnant) don’t want her to have the kid and make him the dad…

SoD: [i]> the second most common population of women with > unintended pregnancy are women in the 40-50 age > range who have stopped using contraceptives because > they erroneously believe that they are “too old” to > get pregnant.

I think you will agree that almost all guys don’t want to be a dad at 55 when they are “too old” to run after a toddler… [/i]

I have a different take on this from limited anecdotal experience. Pregnancy can be very wearing on the body of a mother, and at older ages, it can be harder to recover. For instance, one of my grandmothers was a near invalid for 2-3 years following her very last pregnancy in her mid-/late-40’s. I don’t believe she got pregnant again, but I think her health would have been extremely compromised if she had.

SOD: the abortion theory was posited originally by Steven Levitt (co-author of Freakonomics) ([url]http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113314261192407815-HLjarwtM95Erz45QPP0pDWul8rc_20061127.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top[/url]). It’s a bit hard to disentangle its effect with the lead-effect, because, by chance, lead was no longer allowed to be used as a gasoline additive the very same year that Roe v. Wade was decided.

So if you track forward some 18 years after Roe, and find violent crime peaks and then starts its long decline in the years following–as Levitt found–it would make intuitive sense to think, fewer unwanted children, hence fewer children growing up in bad environments leading to violent criminal behavior.

But there are at least three serious problems with the abortion theory:

The first is that abortion rates and violent crime do not track nearly as well in any other country beside the U.S. The liberalization of abortion laws (or in some countries, where the laws were not changed but the availability of abortion rose due to cultural changes) in many countries came 5-10 years before lead was removed from gasoline and in others 5-10 years after. And what was found by scientists looking into this is that the violent crime-lead correlation effect holds steady in every single country. But in those where abortion was liberalized much later, they did not get a later drop in violent crime; and in those where abortion was liberalized earlier (including various U.S. states, like California), they did not get an earlier drop in violent crime.

There is a second type of problem, as well. It is not the case that non-violent crimes have universally declined the way violent crimes have. Science tells us that violent crimes are strongly tied to a lack of impulse control in the frontal cortex. Non-violent crimes are not. If the result of liberalized abortion were the decline in the percentage of children growing up in undisciplined, generally fatherless households where those children failed to learn proper societal behavior, then we should have seen a similar, steady decline in non-violent crimes beginning in the early 1990s and going forward. But we have not seen that. Non-violent crimes have moved up and down since violent crime started to fall, often better correlated with economic conditions.

And there is a third problem with the Levitt abortion theory. It is based on the premise that “unwanted” children are more likely to grow up in dysfunctional, poor and fatherless households. So higher rates of abortion will reduce this population and hence reduce crime (violent and non-violent). But in reality, the percentage of children since the mid-1960s (10 years before Roe v. Wade) growing up in fatherless, dysfunctional homes has steadily increased and that has continued to this day. As a result, even with Roe, we have not seen a decline in the percentage of children who Levitt accurately describes as being most likely to grow up and commit crimes.

No, I actually do not agree with your first assertion that “almost all ” women having an abortion “have a guy that does not want to be a dad”. I find this far too sweeping and superficial a statement that ignores the complexity of this decision for many couples.

1) Many of the women I see are the one who does not want the child. Some of the fathers do, some do not, and some simply are unaware of the existence of the pregnancy. 2) Many couples who are diagnosed with a child with a severe birth defect are significantly conflicted about what they want to happen with the pregnancy. Sometimes it is the mother who wants to terminate, sometimes it is the father. Usually they are able to work things out to an acceptable solution for the couple. I have seen a few couples torn apart by this agonizing decision.3) [quote]I think you will agree that almost all guys don’t want to be a dad at 55 when they are “too old” to run after a toddler… [/quote] If this were true, we would not be seeing increasing number of couples in their late forties and earlyfifties coming in to Infertility Clinics. Whether or not one believes this is a good idea is not relevant. It is happening.

And, you chose to discount entirely my comment about women with serious health problems. A number of those men do want to be fathers and often have not realized the severity of the threat to their partner of a significant medical condition.

I just feel that this is a much more complicated issue than you have made it out to be.

> I think you will agree that almost all guys don’t > want to be a dad at 55 when they are “too old” to r> un after a toddler…

Then medwoman wrote:

> If this were true, we would not be seeing increasing > number of couples in their late forties and early > fifties coming in to Infertility Clinics.

If you look up the (current bigger than it had ever been) number of people that have toddlers at 55 you will see a number that is so small that “almost everyone” will say that it looks like “almost all guys don’t want to be a new Dad at 55″…

I know that Larry King had kids (with his 7th wife) when he was over 65, but that does not mean that that “almost all” guys don’t want to have kids at 65 (or get married seven different times)…

You would have to show me your source for that number. While it is fairly easy to look up maternal age and determine how many babies are born to mother’s over the age of 50, it is not so easy to get statistically valid information on the age of fathers. I suspect that you would find that the number of fathers over the age of 50 is significantly higher than the number of mothers of the same age especially given that the number of men marrying ( or partnering ) younger women still exceeds the number of women marrying ( or partnering) with younger men.

I’m concerned that someone with two violent crime cases pending can get out on $75,000 bail. Also the boarding school may be an indication that the accused has a history of being more than could be handled at the local level.

Without more information, I would not be too quick to draw any conclusions with regard to “boarding school”.The distinction would need to be drawn between academy type private boarding school which one of my colleagues chose to send her sons to and “residential facility” which is the type of institution where adolescents who are “more than could be handled at the local level” would tend to be enrolled.

> Without more information, I would not be too quick > to draw any conclusions with regard to “boarding school”.

It does not matter if the kid went to reform school, military school Choate, or Thacher. Parents that send their kids away to school want someone else to deal with them and don’t want to take the time to raise them. For the most part the kids that go to Choate, Thacher and similar schools do fine where the kids sent to reform and military school don’t do as well…

[quote]Parents that send their kids away to school want someone else to deal with them and don’t want to take the time to raise them[/quote]

Or as my friend expressed to me when I asked her about this as the concept of boarding school was totally foreign to me, they may honestly believe that their children will get the best educational experience, and make contacts that will serve them well the rest of their lives. This, at least for this couple, was not about a desire to not raise their children. It was about giving their boys the best possible opportunities in life. The four remain very close and both boys have been extremely successful in the traditional sense of the word as we tend to use it.

Our Advertisers

About Us

The Vanguard provides the Davis Community with incisive in-depth coverage of local government on a wide variety of issues. Since 2006, The Vanguard has provided Davis and Yolo County with some of the best groundbreaking news coverage on local government and policy issues affecting our city, our schools, the county, and the Sacramento Region.